Why Gingrich Is Right About Food-Stamp Program: Ramesh Ponnuru

Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Newt Gingrich, as is his wont, has
started a controversy. President Barack Obama, Gingrich has
said, is the “best food-stamp president in American history.”
And: “He will always prefer a food-stamp economy to a paycheck
economy.”

In one town-hall appearance in New Hampshire, Gingrich said
he would be happy to address a convention of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People to explain
that “the African American community should demand paychecks and
not be satisfied with food stamps.”

The resulting furor has highlighted what Gingrich got
wrong. But Gingrich isn’t wrong to be troubled by the
extraordinary growth of the federal food-stamp program.

Liberals have taken Gingrich to be promoting and exploiting
racist sentiments. In their view, he is insinuating to white
voters that a black president is handing out money to idle
blacks because he is hostile to working for a living.

I may be naive, or just biased because I’m a conservative,
but I’m inclined to take a more charitable view. Gingrich had
been making the paychecks-versus-food-stamps contrast for months
without referring to race. He may have been -- clumsily --
making the point that policies that weaken the private sector
and encourage dependency on government harm blacks more than
other Americans. That view may or may not be sound, but it isn’t
based on racial animosity.

Stretching the Truth

Gingrich is, however, stretching the truth when he says
“the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by
Barack Obama than any president in American history.” The number
of people on food stamps -- the program is now officially called
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which makes for
an easy abbreviation -- rose by roughly 14.7 million under
George W. Bush’s administration and has risen an additional 14.2
million under Obama. (In recent months, the number has been
falling.)

Neither administration “put” all those people on food
stamps. The sharp recession and weak recovery are responsible
for much of the increase. Gingrich, presumably, blames Obama for
prolonging the economic pain and thus for indirectly increasing
the food-stamp numbers; but that’s not the same thing as saying
he directly put people on the program.

Economic weakness, though, isn’t the whole story. For much
of the last decade, and with bipartisan support, governments at
all levels have sought to reduce the stigma of food stamps and
encourage people who are eligible for it to sign up. (“Nutrition
is a SNAP!”)

A more troubling reason for the increase is that state
governments have found it easy to get their constituents federal
money -- that is, money mostly raised from current and future
taxpayers in other states -- by making more people eligible for
food stamps. According to a mid-2010 report from the Government
Accountability Office, 35 states have no limit on the amount of
assets a food-stamp recipient can possess. More and more states
-- the count was 36 at the time of the report -- are providing
“categorical eligibility” for food stamps to anyone who receives
welfare services. Merely getting an informational brochure from
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program counts as
receiving a service.

Another way that states and localities can get federal
money flowing to them is by providing token amounts of
assistance with home heating bills. Even a dollar of energy
subsidies can make someone eligible for food stamps, or increase
the benefit level for someone already on SNAP. Vermont, for
example, sends $5 checks to public-housing residents, even
though their subsidized rent already covers heating, to qualify
them for food stamps. Liberal activists call this strategy for
getting federal money “heat and eat.”

Change the Rules

It’s hard to blame cash-strapped jurisdictions for using
the rules of the program to get what they can for their people.
But the rules ought to change. Allowing state officials to raise
federal spending at will is a recipe for trouble.

Able-bodied adults on the main welfare program (TANF again)
have to abide by work requirements -- they have to work, or look
for work, or train to work to receive benefits. This seems like
a reasonable condition to apply to the food-stamp program, as
well. Some congressional Republicans have advocated this policy,
but the Obama administration hasn’t been interested.

Gingrich’s hyperbole, and the reaction to it, shouldn’t
obscure the need to reform the food-stamp program as the economy
improves. The program ought to be focused on people in real need
-- not people who are taking no steps to find work, or who
happen to have had minimal contact with the welfare bureaucracy.
And changes to the program ought to be accompanied by reforms to
programs that raise the price of food. We know that ethanol
subsidies boost food prices significantly, for example, even if
the exact amount is disputed. Federal dairy policies raise the
price of milk: They are designed to do so.

Gingrich promises to be “the best paycheck president in
American history” if elected. We could use a “cheaper-food
president,” too: one who would stand up to the farm lobby.

(Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg View columnist and a senior
editor at National Review. The opinions expressed are his own.)